This morning the local convenience store manager looked at me, and asked with neighborly concern if everything was all right. I told her everything was fine, except that the entire plant kingdom was trying to mate in my nose.My asthma is terrible, and I'm stuck with one of the new inhalers, which is about as effective as waving one of those magnetic copper bracelets you buy off late night tv in front of my chest. Long time readers know I like environmentalism, but this is completely moronic. Asthmatics did not cause ozone holes, and engineering the CFCs out of our inhalers has not done a thing except make politicians feel good, and make me wheeze.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Turns out cosmic rays also cause the ozone hole, will add this to the list of overpopulation, dioxins, deforestation and all the other environmentalist intellectual abortions.
Doesn't the fact that they are wrong about everything that they have ever promoted disturb you? When will environmentalism be held accountable for actually being right about what they say?
When will environmentalism be held accountable for actually being right about what they say?
Oh, but their intentions are good. Isn't that how they are judged?
One of the disturbing things about many environmental activists is the tendency to blow everything toward crisis to garner funding and support.
But you know, I grew up on a dairy farm that ran a mile along side one of the ten-most polluted rivers in the country in the 1960s + 70s. Today, you can swim in it, thanks to environmentalism and the Clean Water Act (written by a senator from my state who also grew up on that same river, fyi.)
You're stretching the truth is every bit as despicable.
Oops, wrong quote, corrected:
but if you're interested in health care and small biz, you might want to check out the other.
Accuracy is important in this context because policy decisions have real consequences on human lives. When Rachel Carson was wrong about DDT, not matter her intentions, millions died. I'm not saying she was a bad person, but that this incident should be used as evidence for evaluating similar claims.
Real human beings are starving and living in material hardship throughout the world. They have a fast practical way out of this human suffering by burning coal. Millions of lives will be saved.
I fear that this time, despite good intentions, the inaccuracy of environmentalist doctrine will have very tragic, very real, human impact.
tehdude, I lived in a place where they sprayed DDT, a rural place.
Funny thing, there were very few birds about in my childhood. Birds who eat flying insects, included.
Lots of birds there now.
Rachel Carson wasn't wrong; and much of the misery you're speaking of can be alleviated with $6 nets.
As far as burning coal goes, why don't you come to Maine and eat the fish in our beautiful lakes and streams every day for a month; then go get your mercury levels checked.
You're only talking replacing one kind of misery with another.
Zic:
Certainly the environmentalist movement is not "always wrong". But they do often blow issues so out of proportion in a very narrow minded manner. Not using DDT in this country was easily solvable. The problem with the ban was it's effect and involvement in millions of deaths in 3rd world countries.
I grew up in Los Angeles, and clearly remember the days of not allowing children outside because of extreme levels of smog, and environmentalists were needed to help the city improve the situation. But persistently claiming everything that happens is a crisis is essentially like crying wolf: the more times they are wrong, the less people will listen when a wolf does come around.
Jesus, talk about revisionism...
Zic, yes, DDT is bad when you use ultra massive amounts for crop dusting. However, when used for local pest control, it's pretty harmless. I don't actually know if Carson advocated the complete ban, but that's irrelevant. The fact is, her publishing of the book results in a damned sight more deaths from malaria per year than if the worldwide ban hadn't been enacted.
Doesn't the fact that they are wrong about everything that they have ever promoted disturb you?
They have been wrong about many thing but certainly not all they promoted.
For example - they said if we didn't do anything Boston Harbor would grown intollerably polluted. We spent billions an a new water treatmetn infrastructure and now all is well (more or less). Without "environmentalist intellectual abortions" who would have pushed for doing something with the raw sewege other than dumping it strait into the harbor?
Just be glad that your not one of the millions of brown-skinned people who died because of malaria when allowing DDT would have taken care of the problem. Or that you aren't one of the millions of brown-skinned people starving to death, or getting into food riots, because ethanol policy has driven up worldwide food prices. Thomas Malthus didn't just argue that the population would exceed food production; he argued that we should let the poor starve and stop giving to charity. Environmentalism is Mathusianism by another name.
This is exactly the problem the environmentalist movement suffers. They exaggerate a particular problem so much, and make correcting it an all or none prospect, often without considering the effect that policy will have on people in other countries (because 3rd world countries are too poor to have the luxury of an environmentalist movement). Thus you have problems like the inhaler, one of several unintended consequences of policies pushed by people who don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees.
Hagios, spare us the drama. That's simply false:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring
"However, DDT has never been banned for anti-malaria use"
There's also a quote from Carlson:
The Wikipedia entry goes on:
She was right about pretty much everything. Rachel Carlson is got to be the worst example ever of radical environmentalism.
And one of the best of how industry, agrobusiness and oh so ideologically pure think-tanks like the CEI can come together to spread blatantly false information.
You should probably look for sources other than Wiki.
DDT was never banned but the EU has used political pressure to keep Africans governments from using it.
Say it Hagios!!!
As another asthma sufferer stuck with one the horrible new inhalers in North Carolina, where we've also had a terrible asthma season, I agree wholeheartedly. I now have to take twice as many puffs to feel about half the relief, plus the delightful side effect of being as jittery as if I'd downed a case of Red Bull.
I feel the same way about compact fluorescent light bulbs. I'm all for saving energy on lighting; but I get severe migraine headaches triggered by strobing light, an CFLs have become one of my primary triggers. There are many stores I cannot shop in because of their lighting; Wal-Mart being a prime example.
One person's environmentalism is often another's pain and sickness.
All fluorescents?
Many types of conventional overhead fluorescents (including, oddly, the U-tube compacts) strobe at twice the mains frequency, or 120Hz, and have been implicated as nausea or migraine triggers in some people. However the ice cream swirl bulbs, all T8-style bulbs, and some other fluorescent fixtures use an electronic ballast operating in the range of 50kHz and generally elimiate this problem.
I'm not inclined to test them out, so I can't answer.
My husband did purchase some of the ice-cream swirl bulbs, and they also caused problems; I do not know if they operated in the 50Hz range, I'll inquire, and test it out when I'm feeling brave and have nothing to do so that I can risk the migraine. (This is rather like purposely drinking until you puke.)
That's kilohertz, actually. May not be 50kHz but it's usually up in that range. The ice cream swirl bulbs are all electronic, the T8 bulbs are all electronic. Many types of undercabinet lights and basic ceiling fixtures can be either, however, so those are hit and miss unless you can find "electronic ballast" stated in the specs on the box.
Edit: And if the swirl bulbs did it to you, then you may be extremely flicker sensitive, or it is possible the spectral bands are causing your grief. In either case you're probably stuck with using incandescents.
I think I'm extremely flicker sensitive; ceiling fans, cement trucks, windshield whipers. . .
Japanese cartoons...
Yes, Rob, Japanese cartoons, discos, and casinos, too.
I'm very lucky that my husband takes such good care of me when I can't care for myself.
Moderate environmentalism, backed by science and measurable criteria, can be a wonderful thing. Cleaning up rivers, capturing toxic wastes, reducing toxic wastes, etc... are all great and help everyone. Often, this sort of effort results in more efficient processes as well.
Radical environmentalism, which is often emotionally driven, is deranged and causes more harm than good. Just about any zero tolerance effort or effort that can't really be measured is a result of radical environmentalism. A total DDT ban, total GM food bans, etc... are results of radical environmentalism.
Unfortunately, it can be hard to distinguish between the two, as the radicals will attempt to cloak their religious beliefs in the trappings of science while simultaneously accusing anyone who disagrees with them of wanting to kill cute baby animals...
I agree with the GM food bans. The DDT ban never happened. See posts upthread.
While DDT was never technically banned, but Western aid groups basically decreed that they wouldn't support any anti-malaria policy which included the use of DDT. For poor African countries, due to their dependence of Western aid for addressing these issues, this had the practical effect of a ban even if it did not technically ban the use of DDT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/11/magazine/what-the-world-needs-now-is-ddt.html?sec=health
No link to Scalzi's post?
To echo Earnest's post, we should make a distinction.
Conservationists want to, for example, prevent extinctions*, and are perfectly happy with spending money to clean up polluted rivers and scrub smelter exhaust.
Environmentalists cause us problems.
"Concern with 'the environment' at any level" does not mean "environmentalism". That people suppose it does is perhaps partly a failure of nomenclature, and partly something environmentalists actively support.
(* Where the species involved matter and the cost isn't enormous relative to the benefit. A mouse that turns out to actually not even be a separate species, and the only difference anyway was a stripe on its tail? Not so important to save.
That and caring about costs is the sort of difference I have in mind. Environmentalists, as opposed to conservationists in my taxonomy, don't seem to care, typically, about the costs of their plans; humans don't enter into the calculus except as a Cause Of Evil.)
And you live in DC! It's awful for allergies down there.... so swampy.
I'm stuck with one of the new inhalers, which is about as effective as waving one of those magnetic copper bracelets you buy off late night tv in front of my chest. Long time readers know I like environmentalism, but this is completely moronic. Asthmatics did not cause ozone holes, and engineering the CFCs out of our inhalers has not done a thing except make politicians feel good, and make me wheeze.
Your perceived difference in effectiveness is either psychosomatic or due to some factor other than the propellant (are you taking long. slow breaths instead of "puffs", do you regularly clean your inhaler, are you using a "rescue" inhaler when you should be using a steroidal, etc.). There is no efficacy difference between HFA inhalers and CFC inhalers which can be demonstrated through pulmonary tests. Many people convince themselves that the HFA inhalers aren't as effective because the spray feels "less forceful" and/or warmer, but there is no difference in the active medicine. Your argument from personal incredulity aside, what is your evidence that releasing fewer CFCs has no effect on reducing ozone depletion?
To Hagios, DDT was never banned for combating malaria. That's a complete right wing fabrication.
I am not contesting that CFCs deplete ozone; I am merely contesting the notion that the entirely trivial amount released by asthma inhalers was noticeably depleting the ozone layer. Dose matters.
As for the new inhalers, it isn't psychosomatic, because I didn't know I had gotten a different kind of inhaler until it didn't, like, work. Yes, I'm doing what I'm supposed to, but every single asthmatic I know is experiencing these same, mysterious, psychosomatic symptoms. And my treatment regimen hasn't changed; only the albuterol. Now I may have to go on steroids, because asthma that was well controlled on rescue doses no longer can be.
Yes, I'm doing what I'm supposed to, but every single asthmatic I know is experiencing these same, mysterious, psychosomatic symptoms.
If it's psychosomatic that would make sense, because you talk to each other about how using this inhaler causes X symptoms. It's kind of how the whole psychosomatic thing works. On the other hand, my wife doesn't seem to have any problem with the new type of inhaler. She only noticed because it costs more on insurance because all inhalers are now name-brand drugs. The doctor also for some reason prescribed her the expensive single isomer version of the drug, instead of the cheaper racemic albuterol.
Standard albuterol inhalers are a racemic mixture of two isomers, are you sure you were using standard albuterol before or the new version that contains only one isomer. Some studies (not completely convincing) have said that standard albuterol makes you more jittery than their new expensive version.
I invite you to take a nice, slow, deep breath when your airway is constricting. On a side note, that "distinct taste" is gag inducing.
My wife seems to manage just fine. I agree that doing it because of the ban on CFC's was probably a waste of money, but there isn't a whole lot of evidence that the new inhalers are less effective.
Poppycock. If she had said MOST asthmatics she knew had the problem it could possibly be psychosomatic(not, however, definitely). If however, it's every asthmatic then it's indisputably a problem with the inhaler. Psychosomatic effects are just another instance of the placebo effect, which means there will almost never be a 100% show rate in a given group
Thingsbreak,
If my time at a liberal arts college taught me anything, the environmental movement was involved in a vigorous campaign to suppress the use of DDT and GM crops in Africa. They lobbied local governments not to use these technologies, and spread exaggerated information about their risks.
The bottom line is that DDT could have saved lives, but its use was curtailed because its environmental impact. It was a choice, between the ecosystem and human lives, and environmentalists made that choice.
The same applies to GM crops. Sure, our engineered varieties will get out into nature. Its strange proponents try to hide from this. But so what. Human beings that would have gone hungry will have food to eat. That is all the ethical justification I need.
Again, this not accurate. It isn't a choice. There was never a ban on DDT to fight Malaria, and the moderate use of DDT both protected the environment and retarded the development of mosquito resistance.
DDT may not have been banned for fighting malaria, but it certainly is the case that it was looked on with great disfavor by western aid groups who strongly discouraged its use.
Between "...looked on with great disfavor by western aid groups" to what tehdude initially stated and
there's a dig difference.Carson and other environmental group claims about DDT's impact on the environment were right. Predictions that widespread and careless use would lead to increase of mosquito resistance were correct, and Carson was not against the use of DDT to fight malaria. In spite of all this, they met fierce opposition by interest groups that disseminated misinformation, polarized positions and prevented a constructive debate on the whole issue.
If tehdude's college buddies were misinformed ideological assholes, he should try to learn from their example, not mirror them in the opposite position.
Um. CFCs *did* cause the ozone hole, contrary to overeager commenters above. I don't think there's any significant debate about this at all. As I understand the cosmic ray objection, by that proposed mechanism, the cosmic rays work in conjunction with CFCs and would be basically harmless to the ozone layer in the absence of CFCs. For example:
http://focus.aps.org/story/v8/st8
Basically scientists think that UV light breaks down CFCs, and the CFC components destroy ozone. Recently, some other scientists proposed that cosmic rays break down CFC, and the CFC components destroy ozone in the same way that we always thought they did.
What I think Megan's getting at is that the amount of CFCs in inhalers is small and thus not a significant contributor to ozone depletion.
Megan, have you read this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/health/13asth.html
I invite you to take a nice, slow, deep breath when your airway is constricting. On a side note, that "distinct taste" is gag inducing.
I am merely contesting the notion that the entirely trivial amount released by asthma inhalers was noticeably depleting the ozone layer.
IIRC metered dose inhaler contribution of CFCs was something like 5,000 tons in the early 90s and presumably is significantly larger now. Given that alternatives exist, it's silly to continue to use CFCs in inhalers even if the contribution is only a percent of overall emissions or less, just to placate people who can't be arsed to use HFA inhalers correctly.
every single asthmatic I know is experiencing these same, mysterious, psychosomatic symptoms
The plural of anecdote is not data. It's the same medicine.
Yes, I'm doing what I'm supposed to
Really? That's contradicted by
I didn't know I had gotten a different kind of inhaler until it didn't, like, work.
If you didn't know you had a different inhaler, you were using it like a CFC version- in other words incorrectly. Are you priming it? Are you washing it once a week or so? Are you taking slow, deep breaths?
If you are doing everything properly and still not experiencing relief, go to a pulmonary specialist, because something else is wrong. I know it's satisfying to blame environmentalists and other assorted lefties for all that's wrong in the world, but you cannot ignore the simple fact that it's the same active medicine. The most likely source of the problem is simple user error.
A product that produces "simple user error" in a majority of its users is not a useful product.
Metered dose inhaler contribution has actually gone down, because many of the non-rescue uses have been switched to different delivery mechanisms, i.e. Advair.
Obviously, I consulted my doctor when my inhaler didn't work, and got the tutorial from both him and the web. Your certainty that this could only be a problem with me, and all the other asthmatics I know, without knowing anything about me, is ludicrously unscientific.
I'm not "blaming environmentalists and lefties"--I don't think environmentalists were particularly worried about this trivial application. I think it was stupid shortsighted bureaucratic behavior.
It would be cruel to wish serious pulmonary disease on you so that you could try to follow these prescriptions while gasping for breath. And yet, I am a cruel person. You have a non-trivial chance of developing one or the other of the progressive respiratory problems available to lucky patients. If you do, I hope you, too, encounter someone who treats your desire to breathe freely as silly, and your inability to do so as your fault. I also hope that when you do, you hold your temper better than I am.
A product that produces "simple user error" in a majority of its users is not a useful product..
Talk about ludicrously scientific. It produces a use error in your anecdotal data, but I don't think you can make that claim. "Asking around" is not a scientific study, especially since your friends are more likely to be empathetic and agree with you. The burden of proof is on you, mainly because of how clinical trials are designed. One point of a clinical trial is to tease out the use errors, and if they really were that much more difficult to use we'd have seen differences in efficacy between HFA and CFCs.
Do you use a spacer with your metered dose inhaler (MDI)? This increases drug delivery by about 40%. There are also beta agonist inhalers out there that are breath actuated, and not nearly as dependent on proper timing of the inhalation. I'm assuming you're on an inhaled steroid; if so, addition of a long acting Beta agonist may help you. I doubt you smoke. Poorly controlled sinus disease and gastroesophageal reflux may make asthma tough to control, as well as bronchpulmonary aspergillosis(a fungus). Hope you feel better soon.
When it comes to ozone destruction, a little goes a long way.
Atomic chlorine released by CFCs in the upper atmosphere is a *catalyst*, meaning that one chlorine atom could destroy an indefinite quantity of ozone.
So Megan is randomly asserting (from common sense and anecdote) that:
- The amount of CFCs in asthma inhalers is insignificant
- CFC propellants work better than HFA's.
It's the urban-legend approach to analysis of the issues: it sounds plausible and it fits what you already believe so it must be true.
Putting the "glib" into "glibertarian", eh?
I hate to tell you, but since Google, there's really excuse for not checking your assertions when you're publishing something on the Atlantic web site for gods sake.
It would be cruel to wish serious pulmonary disease on you so that you could try to follow these prescriptions while gasping for breath. And yet, I am a cruel person. You have a non-trivial chance of developing one or the other of the progressive respiratory problems available to lucky patients. If you do, I hope you, too, encounter someone who treats your desire to breathe freely as silly, and your inability to do so as your fault. I also hope that when you do, you hold your temper better than I am.
See my post in your newer thread. You know what happens when you make assumptions, right?
Your certainty that this could only be a problem with me, and all the other asthmatics I know, without knowing anything about me, is ludicrously unscientific.
I am not at all certain that it's a problem isolated to you and those you know. In fact I know that to be the case. My point was that you cannot draw meaningful conclusions based on such a small sample. Although I could make some reasonably educated guesses as to why your group seems to be experiencing the same problems...
In fact I know that NOT to be the case.
thingsbreak,
You are kind of being a d*&khead in your attitude towards Megan. Additionally, although I'm not particularly informed about this issue, I don't find it very surprising that the FDA is happy to report that the new inhaler is just as effective as the device it replaced. The new device is only on the market because the FDA's ultimate master forced its introduction. I think we heard the same story about being just as effective about those reduced flow toilets and I'm pretty sure that was a load of crap.
I'm not trying to be (although the comment about blaming lefties was admittedly gratuitous). I think we've reached an amicable level of discussion in the new thread, and I am honestly hoping and trying to assist in her getting the necessary relief for her breathing problems as well as discussing the problems with CFC phaseout or lack thereof. As I imagine others are as well...
I noticed that the tone had improved over there. Also, Megan's descriptions of her actions with regard to the inhaler were rather confusing. In many instances, individuals are also very willing to disregard findings of studies when their one personal experience is telling them something different. Also, I don't think this discussion necessarily has anything to do with the "evils" of environmentalism as it does with Congress's many failings.
Heh, I just re-read The Last Colony. What a great book. I guess Zoe's Tale is next up for re-run here.
Thank God for Scalzi and Stross. After Zelazny died, I couldn't find anything good for years.
Give Neil Gaimon's "American Gods," and "The Graveyard Book," a try..
It's time to inject a few facts into the HFA MDI discussion for the benefit of the arrogant fools on this thread who insist that the complaints of thousands of asthma and pulmonary patients (including patients who are MDs, pharm/chemistry PhDs, RNs, RRTs, and nurse anaesthesiologists) are "psychomatic".
1. HFA rescue MDIs ARE less effective than CFC rescue MDIs- GlaxoWellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) admitted this in their own New Drug Application for Ventolin HFA (and Ventolin HFA is the only HFA rescue MDI that DOESN'T use the PROVEN BRONCHOSTRICTOR ethanol as a solvent).
2. HFA rescue MDIs ARE more dangerous than CFC rescue MDIs. Schering-Plough itself says this about its product, Proventil HFA:
"RAPID HEART BEAT, VOMITING, CHEST PAIN and PALPITATION OCCURS MORE FREQUENTLY WITH PROVENTIL HFA (than with CFC albuterol)."
3. We have links to the safety comparison charts on the Press Room page of our website at SaveCFCinhalers.org for Proventil HFA and Ventolin CFC clinical trials (only these two ran against active CFC albuterol controls, and only these two were used by the FDA to determine that CFC albuterol could be banned per FDA Final Rule 21 CFE 2.125). We also link to the NEJM chart which includes ProAir safety data. A bright 10 year can review these charts in a few minutes and intelligently decide that CFC albuterol is MUCH SAFER than the HFA formulations.
4. Non-racemic albuterol sulfate (Xopenex HFA) is, in my personal opinion, better than the racemic HFA albuterol formulations, but it does have some very nasty side effects and we have many patients who can't tolerate it. Again, we link to its safety data, which is not reassuring, even when compared to an sctive HFA control, despite its great 'story'.
5. We have three years of FDA MedWatch DATA which is posted on our site which STRONGLY supports our position.
6. We have DATA from a large UK study by Ayres, which supports our position.
7. We have New Zealand DATA which supports our position.
8. The problem with HFA MDIs is NOT with the active ingredients, the problem is with the INACTIVE ingredients and the UNIQUE IMPURITIES in each MDI (CFC or HFA). Some people (not all) are allergic to/intolerant of these excipients and impurities and better inhaler technique will only cause them to inhale MORE of these toxic substances (for THEM) which will harm, not help them.
9. The doctors who say that 'the studies all show that HFA rescue MDIs are just as safe and effective as CFC rescue MDIs' either NEVER READ THE STUDIES, or they are LYING. It is common to find (in drug company-sponsored clinical trials- which were a JOKE in this case because they were so small) that THE DATA CONTRADICT THE PAID 'INVESTIGATOR'S' self-serving, biased CONCLUSIONS. Doctors who only read the CONCLUSIONS have NO IDEA what they are talking about, so they tend to dismiss their patient's complaints and step them up (in this case) to more dangerous drugs (black box warnings, only to be used as a LAST RESORT) containing Long Acting Beta Agonists like Advair and Symbicort- which their patients would NEVER HAVE NEEDED (in most cases) IF THEY STILL HAD ACCESS TO CFC MDIs.
10. 'Environment-friendly' HFA-134a propellant was NEVER TESTED on asthma/pulmonary patients. It was only tested on normal, healthy volunteers, who, as a rule, do NOT have severe allergies, or hyperreactive, inflamed airways.
11. HFA MDIs SHOULD have undergone large scale, REAL WORLD (testing is done on older, sicker patients- including COPD, cystic fibrosos, lung cancer, severe asthmatics- unlike pre-approval clinical trials testing only a handful of mild/moderate asthmatics) US postmarketing studies- we have FDA quotes to this effect- but IPAC (HFA MDI drug companies) said 'NO' and so these large tests WERE NEVER DONE. Until NOW. And the results for many thousands of patients are disastrous.
12. Hate to disappoint the enviro-freaks on board, but 'environment-friendly' HFA-134a is such an intense global warmer- MUCH more so than CFC-11,12- that it TOO will eventually be banned, The CFC MDI ban was a story of junk science gone wild. It should never have happened. It is medically and scientifically UNJUSTIFIABLE.
13. 'The Literature' about clinical drug trials is mostly drug componay sponsored, and drug company sponsored studies are a cesspool of LIES and MANIPULATION. Most doctors grew up from Day 1 of medical school in this cesspool and they are hopelessly brainwashed. They don't know (or care) that many studies have repeatedly proven that drug sponsored drug trials ARE FIVE TIMES as likely to conclude that the drug being 'studied' is as safe and effective as the currnt market leader, compared to NON drug-company-sponsored trials of the same drug.
14. Look around this link to get an idea of how serious this problem is: http://www.ahrp.org
15. Regarding the 'danger' of CFC MDI emissions- THERE ARE NONE. There is NO EVIDENCE that these trivial emissions threatened the ozone layer (even some honest HFA MDI proponents admit this is nonsense), increase ground-level UVB, or increase skin cancer prevalence, which, by the way, IS NOT CAUSED BY OZONE DEPLETION in any event.
All of this is documented in the Press Room page and HFA MDIs: Poorly Tested page at www.SaveCFCinhalers.org
We invite anyone who wants to join our campaign to have Congress amend the Clean Air Act to allow for the permanent legalization of CFC MDIs to sign up at our website.
Arthur Abramson
The National Campaign to Save CFC Asthma Inhalers
#4 Should read 'non racemic levalbuterol tartrate'